irrefutable bottom line about picture ID's

If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
national security.

There hasn't been a single case of terroristic use of a GA airplane
that I am aware of. The whole case in question revolves around 9-11
with commercial airliners and did not even involve the pilots. It
was a failure of a governmental agency to determine whereabouts and
activities of foreign nationals (i.e. non-US citizens).

In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
an illusion of greater security. It is akin to locking the barn door
after the horse has escaped. When it finally becomes obvious that
the measure did nothing to prevent future attacks there will be
even more measures and restrictions which will be proposed.

This is my opinion and I'm sure most people will disagree with me.

If picture ID's had been required before 911, the terrorists certainly would
have had them. If terrorists use planes again it will be a comfort to us
all to know that they have picture ID's in their wallets.

The biggest problem with all the public relations oriented crap is that it
makes us less safe by diverting money, human resources, and public pressure
for real security solutions.

The mother of all feel-good responses was the war in Iraq. Yes, Sadam was a
danger. He should have been booted. The US should have taken the lead on
it. US troops should have been sent in. But, not in a way that used up 90%
of our resources, alienated the nations we need to help us in the struggle,
created thousands of new and more radical terrorists, and not rushed to try
and get it over with before the election.

There is a basic misunderstanding of terrorism. The purpose is not to scare
or force us into changing our policies. The terrorists know that we have
more spine than that. The primary purpose is to create more terrorists.
These guys think about nothing else and they know history. They know that,
when a critical mass in a society is committed, nothing can stand in their
way. That's what brought the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union down. The
purpose of terrorism is to create that critical mass WITHIN THE MIDDLE EAST
COUNTIES. They do that by prompting the nations they attack to do things
like rush into invasions with inadequate planning in a way that creates the
chaos that is the perfect breeding ground for new recruits. So far, we have
responded as if Bin Laden wrote the script and had a direct red phone line
into the White House. They have been aided by an administration craven
enough to equate any questioning of their simplistic fantasy of the world
with being unpatriotic and not supporting our troops.

Supporting our troops does not mean keeping your mouth shut. It means their
being sent in with a plan, with sufficient equipment, when the time is
right. Above all, it means that many of them should have been from other
nations, just as a matter of numbers, we already stretched thin. Just ask
the Nation Guard members on their second rotation. It was also vital to
preventing the radicalizing effect of this being all US invasion.

If Jr. had had the brains and foreign policy skill of his father, and had
not viewed the war on terrorism just as a domestic political opportunity, we
would have been invading Iraq about now. The country would have been
blanked with troops, many of them Muslims. There would have been
reconstruction resources in place. We would have been prepared to seize all
the weapons and medical radioactive materials that disappeared. Sadam would
have been no more dangerous. Above all, we would have first better secured
our other fronts of vulnerability. Doing this would have required
explaining to the American people and the world why we weren't doing
anything right now before the end of the next news cycle. That takes
leadership, something we are totally lacking. Leadership means leading
which means showing the way and changing the direction things are going.
Marching along in a fancy uniform ahead of a parade and going wherever it is
going is not leadership however grand it looks.

Don't tell me Kerry will do a worse job just because he's a Democrat and all
democrats are idiots. No one can know how he will do but anyone willing to
put their partisanship aside and look at just look at what's going on as
they would an engineering or business problem, cost/benefit,
resources/expenditures, system function, ought to be able to see that this
has all been screwed up beyond imagination.

--

Roger Long



"kontiki" wrote in message
...
If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
national security.

There hasn't been a single case of terroristic use of a GA airplane
that I am aware of. The whole case in question revolves around 9-11
with commercial airliners and did not even involve the pilots. It
was a failure of a governmental agency to determine whereabouts and
activities of foreign nationals (i.e. non-US citizens).

In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
an illusion of greater security. It is akin to locking the barn door
after the horse has escaped. When it finally becomes obvious that
the measure did nothing to prevent future attacks there will be
even more measures and restrictions which will be proposed.

This is my opinion and I'm sure most people will disagree with me.

kontiki wrote:

If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
national security.

Neither have I, but...

In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
an illusion of greater security.

I think its a bit more than an illusion. Children in some Middle and
High Schools are being required to display school issued ID's.. It helps
to sort out who belongs and who doesnt. Every little bit helps. I have
an ID for work, an ID for the airport (city owned, joint use airport), a
photo on my DL, a photo on my concealed handgun license.. but my pilot
certificate, run by the US Govt doesn't have a photo on it? Heck, even
the dependent's military ID just to be able to shop at AAFES (the
military version of SuperWalmart) has a picture.

This is my opinion and I'm sure most people will disagree with me.

You are entitled to yours, and I disagree with you.
Dave

I actually agree 100% that pilots should have photo ID's. It's taking it
out of the homeland security pot and calling it an anti-terrorist measure
that is silly. We should have had them years ago. It's for protection of
our aircraft and avionics, not the homeland.

Now see my post above. The Republican spin doctors would jump on me and
say, "See, he's a flip flopper. First he says one thing, then he says
another. Disregard everything he says."

The real political divide is no longer between liberal and conservative.
It's between thinking and not thinking. One view of the world holds that
you assemble all the facts, discard the ones that are not consistent with
your ideology and preconceptions, and then use what is left over to develop
a policy. The other approach is to assemble all the facts, sort them for
consistency, assemble the best planning model possible from them, and then
develop a policy. The problem with the latter is it takes longer and
requires a lot more leadership. This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue.
Neither party has a monopoly on either wisdom or stupidity. Bush however,
has surrounded himself entirely (except perhaps for Colin Powell) with the
former kind of thinkers.

--

Roger Long



"Dave S" wrote in message
ink.net...


kontiki wrote:

If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
national security.

Neither have I, but...

In my opinion the whole picture ID thing is feel-good lawmaking
that will cost more money and inconvenience in order to provide
an illusion of greater security.

I think its a bit more than an illusion. Children in some Middle and
High Schools are being required to display school issued ID's.. It helps
to sort out who belongs and who doesnt. Every little bit helps. I have
an ID for work, an ID for the airport (city owned, joint use airport), a
photo on my DL, a photo on my concealed handgun license.. but my pilot
certificate, run by the US Govt doesn't have a photo on it? Heck, even
the dependent's military ID just to be able to shop at AAFES (the
military version of SuperWalmart) has a picture.

This is my opinion and I'm sure most people will disagree with me.

You are entitled to yours, and I disagree with you.
Dave

"Roger Long" wrote in message
.. .

Don't tell me Kerry will do a worse job just because he's a Democrat and
all
democrats are idiots.

Actually, my main problem with Kerry is that I don't believe a thing that
comes out of his mouth. Just since he's been a pres. candidate (well that's
actually since he was about 16, but that's another matter) he has been the
pro-war candidate, the anti-war candidate, the anti-anti-war candidate, and
now the pro-anti-war candidate. The only way to explain John Kerry's policy
positions are (1) chaos theory and (2) he will say anything whatsoever to
get elected. What he'll actually do in office, who the hell knows?

Best,
-cwk.

The real political divide is no longer between liberal and conservative.
It's between thinking and not thinking. One view of the world holds that
you assemble all the facts, discard the ones that are not consistent with
your ideology and preconceptions, and then use what is left over to
develop
a policy. The other approach is to assemble all the facts, sort them for
consistency, assemble the best planning model possible from them, and then
develop a policy. The problem with the latter is it takes longer and
requires a lot more leadership.

While I agree with your basic summation of an underlying current that flows
beneath both ideologies, I truly think that the Left has decided that
"thinking it through" means that ultimately there is no right or wrong in
this world -- only various shades of gray.

At this point in time, with the type of enemies who are aligned against us,
we need a leader who can discern right from wrong. Good from evil, if you
will.

As much as I have misgivings about Bush, Kerry isn't the man for the job.

I wish he were.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Roger Long wrote:

Now see my post above. The Republican spin doctors would jump on me and
say, "See, he's a flip flopper. First he says one thing, then he says
another. Disregard everything he says."

That's a pretty good example.

I watched Kerry try to explain his take on the Iraqi war, and I think he's
in deep trouble. He takes a considered, subtle approach. Too many
Americans - probably too many people in general, but Americans are the ones
voting in this election - are completely oblivious to both consideration
and subtlety. This is why we often have problems with juries, in fact.

Bush, on the other hand, "takes a stand". People admire that. Never mind
that what this really means is that he draws a conclusion early, and then
sticks with it regardless of the evidence that comes his way.

Again: see problems with juries.

- Andrew

Jay Honeck wrote:
While I agree with your basic summation of an underlying current that flows
beneath both ideologies, I truly think that the Left has decided that
"thinking it through" means that ultimately there is no right or wrong in
this world -- only various shades of gray.

First, it's silly to make the general statement "the Left has decided".
But, in reality, because our world is so complex, especially when dealing
with foreign countries, most decisions made by our political leaders ARE
between various shades of gray.

--- Jay




--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

In article ,
"Roger Long" wrote:

The real political divide is no longer between liberal and conservative.
It's between thinking and not thinking. One view of the world holds that
you assemble all the facts, discard the ones that are not consistent with
your ideology and preconceptions, and then use what is left over to develop
a policy. The other approach is to assemble all the facts, sort them for
consistency, assemble the best planning model possible from them, and then
develop a policy. The problem with the latter is it takes longer and
requires a lot more leadership. This isn't a Republican vs. Democrat issue.
Neither party has a monopoly on either wisdom or stupidity. Bush however,
has surrounded himself entirely (except perhaps for Colin Powell) with the
former kind of thinkers.


Very well said, and very true (and I'm no great Kerry supporter -- not
yet, anyway).

Re the Bush admin in particular, for a while one might have cited Paul
O'Neill, and maybe Christie Whitman, along with Colin Powell. Having
just finished reading "The Price of Loyalty" by Ron Suskind, the book
about O'Neill's career as Secretary of the Treasury, I'd recommend it as
a very informative casebook on the above theme, as well as a very
entertaining read, regardless of your politics. (O'Neill voted for Bush
and says at the end he probably would again).

Notable quote from p. 114:

"O'Neill knew that Whitman had never heard the President
analyze acomplex issue, parse opposing positions, and settle
on a judicious path. In fact, no one -- inside or outside the
government, here or across the globe -- had heard him do
that to any significant degree. And that, O'Neill decided,
was what Whitman was getting at with the word "credibility."
It was not just the President's credibility around the world.
It was credibility with his most senior officials."

The really serious concern is that the Rove/Cheney/Karen Hughes axis
doesn't just "discard" facts they don't like, they actively suppress
them -- and then lie about them. Bush himself doesn't necessarily do
the same. Concepts like "facts" or "thinking" or "parse intelligently
arrayed opposing positions" just aren't terms relevant to his mental
processes.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
If have heard not one single tangible bit of evidence from anyone
that requiring a picture ID for pilot license will do anything
to justify the cost and inconvenience when it comes to enhancing
national security.

There hasn't been a single case of terroristic use of a GA airplane
that I am aware of. The whole case in question revolves around 9-11
with commercial airliners and did not even involve the pilots. It
was a failure of a governmental agency to determine whereabouts and
activities of foreign nationals (i.e. non-US citizens).


Okay, you recognize that picture IDs will do nothing to enhance security,
but you are unable to see the impossibility of tracking foreign nationals or
any other class of people in this country.

I know! We should pass a law requiring all foreign nationals to wear tinfoil
hats with red streamers at least three feet long. That will fix the problem.